George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty in Trayvon Martin Case: What's Your Stance?

 Memes ... you can always count on them to show up!!

Okay, so the verdict is in and George Zimmerman has been deemed innocent on the charge of manslaughter against Trayvon Martin. For those of you who don't know, Trayvon Martin, 17, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, 29, on February 26, 2012 . 

From the start of the case the "stand your ground law" has been scrutinized, examined, and picked apart by various news outlets. One person who has been writing about this law for years, Ben Montgomery, a Tampa Bay Times staff writer. His articles about the law go back further than Trayvon Martin's death. He has been pointing out the flaws with that very defense for quite a while now. 

Immediately following the death of Trayvon Martin, he wrote an article about who gets away with using the law as their defense. This article had the appropriate title "'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point." It's hard to call this article anything but intriguing as he opens with quotes from two Republican leaders, a former senator who supported the bill, and Florida's very own former governor, Jeb Bush, who signed the law.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

Some people have claimed that the "stand your ground" law was not used in this case, but it was used in the opening statements by Zimmerman's defense, so sorry, but yes, it was used in this case. And because it was used in this case, many other questions have come into the conversation. Is it a reasonable defense? Jeb Bush and Durrell Peaden say no. Zimmerman put himself in that situation. He followed Martin; he was not "standing his ground," therefore they say that law never should have been used as a defense in this case. Also, it brings up the question, why does it work for some people and not others?  

Since you asked, here's a comprehensive breakdown of the law's history since its birth in 2004:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

I think this image supports the findings of inconsistencies with the "stand your ground" laws and I am sure, by now, that most everyone has seen it. Again, this raises questions about this shaky defense.

As I said, I want everyone to join in the conversation, so I have some additional links in relation to the case and will post more to make details clear. This link is a video from Fox News with Geraldo Rivera talking about the verdict of the case:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/07/14/foxs-geraldo-rivera-you-dress-like-a-thug-peopl/194866

Rivera stated: "You Dress Like A Thug, People Are Going To Treat You Like A Thug. That's True. I Stand By That." ... How does that make you feel? What's your perception on that observation? What do you think of when you think of a thug? Is a "thug" a universal image?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/14/naacp-asking-obama-administration-to-pursue-zimmerman-civil-case/

Obama received quite a bit of criticism in relation to this case as well. He has been scrutinized and blamed for turning the trial into a "racist" issue for having said "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." This article is about his "call for calm" following the verdict. "I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher," he said. "But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son," Obama said. Read more below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57593671/obama-calls-for-calm-in-wake-of-george-zimmerman-verdict/

Of course, the race question came into play immediately following the death of Martin more than a year ago. Who else would have something to say about it other than author of Race Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation, and Tampa Bay Times staff writer, Eric Deggans? What's his stance? Of course, race had something to do with it, it always has. Although many people say it has nothing to do with race, if you look at the people who have been following the case it's a different story. In addition, he goes on to discuss the unanswered questions in the case and states the jurors should come forward with answers to those questions. He also says despite the race factor, there was no witness which makes it even harder to come to a conclusion in the findings of this case. What's your opinion?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/what-the-george-zimmerman-verdict-means----and-doesnt-mean----for-race-and/2131369

I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the wording of this image, but I think it hits home with the idea of who can get away with what. It's scary to think I live in a state where someone can walk up behind me and because we get into a fight, they can kill me ... say whaaa!?

Now, where do I stand on all this? The way I see it, a seventeen-year-old boy is dead, and the man who killed him is alive. There were no witnesses to state who started the fight, so it's hard to tell if Zimmerman is telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." But we do know he approached Martin. We do know Martin was not armed and Zimmerman was armed. We also know that Martin was a boy who made "bad" decisions, but that doesn't mean he was a "bad person." We know marijuana was is Martin's system (which in my opinion should not have been used to illustrate his character as a lot of teens do smoke/have smoked/will smoke marijuana at one point or another and end up as "good citizens" as adults). This incident did not take place in Zimmerman's home, but rather outside in the open (and somehow there were no witnesses). For the reason that it took place in the open, for the reason that Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive (and Zimmerman did not receive any long-lasting injuries from Martin), for the reason that Martin was not armed and Zimmerman was, I think the verdict was completely wrong. At the very least, the man should be behind bars for manslaughter. Maybe his intent was not to kill the boy (and for that reason I say manslaughter not murder), but he certainly did not look remorseful for the boy's family when the verdict was called. In my mind there is no doubt he was in the wrong; however, in the mind of his jurors there was certainly some reason to doubt, otherwise this case would have turned out completely different.